¡Descarga SEMANTICS 1. Introduction to Semantics 2. LEXICAL SEMANTICS y más Apuntes en PDF de Idioma Inglés solo en Docsity!
SEMANTICS:
1. Introduction to Semantics
There is consensus in linguistics that semiotics is the scientific study of meaningful signs. There is also consensus in linguistics that semantics is the scientific study of meaning in language, so its easy to see that semantics forms part of a wider discipline than semiotics.
There is also relative consensus that pragmatics is the scientific study of language in context. That is because if you can think in meaning in a free context or in a dependant context then you had to make a distinction between semantics and pragmatics
Semantics is part of semiotics, the scientific study of meaning in language and there is where consensus stops, its a place where all experts agree.
- Non scientific semantics: speculative etymology, rhetoric, dictionaries
- Scientific semantics:
- Historical- philological (1850-1930)
- Structuralist semantics (1930-)
- Generativist semantics (1960-)
- Cognitive semantics (1980-)
There existed always a great tradition of the study of words and their meaning but it has not always been approached in a scientific way:
- Speculative stymology: people had the conception that the meaning of words had meaning that could be attached to any other word. However etymology tried to found the true and only meaning of words. Mors>Amorus (bitter) /Mars> Morsus (bite). Its speculative because there is nothing scientific.
- Rhetoric: Medieval times, Liberal arts. Trivium quadrivium. The Trivium consisted on grammar, dialectics and rethoric, the queadrivium consisted on arithmetic, music, geometry and astronomy. The relation to semantics comes with the fact that the sons of noblemen learn some sort of rethorical devices for example eufemism, metonomy and metaphor in order to envelish their speech
- Dictionaries: by the middle of the 17th Century dicciotaries began to be compipled. The first was the french Academy of language. The first english language was the samuel johnson dictionary in 1755. The firsts intentions was to show people how to use language propertly.
The scientific approaches then were:
- Historical-philological approach : its characterised by very serious and detailed Studies, above all in the evolution of words meanings. People are interested in words meaning and their sound evolution in the time. Some scholars are Bréal, known for stressing the psicologycal aspect of meaning, and Hermain Paul, known for his emphasis on usage and context that words on our head are not the only important thing but the context where it is placed. The changes in the evolution of words are: - Specialization: Meat, and old english word for food. - Generalisation: the word moon used to mean the Earth satellite. But probably with the discovering of new moons it became the name for every moon, around , or not, the Earth. - Metonymy: the greek word fobus meant huida. The difference with specialization is that in here the trasposition of meaning has a logical connection. - Metaphor:
Structuralist semantics: it is the domininat school in the USA and it has its origin in a volumen published in 1916 by the named father of structuralism and modern linguistics Fernande de Sausurre. He was the creator of the difference between Parole and langue. La lengua y el lenguaje. They studied the structure of language as an organised system, not interested in their placement in our mind but their placement in a system of a language. Less interested in historical development, for the first time he focused on the language composition in the now and here. Structuralist examine semantic fields. Its a feature based model, the meaning of a word is a given number of semantic components, what is called a componential analysis. Structuralist are fundametally interested in describing language as a system and less in the users of it that is why it lacks of social implications.
Generativist Semantics: its main characters are Chomsky and Halle. The linguistic system for generativist can be explained by rules. Its a rule based model. Not interest again in the language users, but the rules. For generativist language is
2. LEXICAL SEMANTICS
The semiotic triangle.
- The trigger refers to anything linguistic or non linguistics that evokes meaning. For example words coming out from my mouth evokes a image on your brain. A drawing of a fruit evoke the very fruit
- Linguistic relativity: relationship between language and thought, not only that language reflect thought but determines it. Or what is called the Sapir- Whorf hypothesis. They coined the terms universalism and variationism. That although humans are very similar not speak the same language and have the same culture. Being in a certain culture we acquire the language of that culture and think according to it. That is to say for example: speakers of “hopi” cant speak in terms of past and future but now. Eleanor rosch is another character related to the linguistic relativity. Rosch as a psychiatrist worked with scientific methods
- The concept its the meaning itself
- Categorisation: relationship between the concepts we have and the things in real or imaginary world. It is something that we learn to do through language learning and experiencing the world.
- The Referent is the refered concept
There exist three types of iconic references
- Symbol : does not have a natural link between the form and the thing represented, but only has a conventional link. The traffic signo f an invertid triangle is one such symbol.
- Index: points to something in its inmediate vicinity ( index F 0E 0pointing^ finger). The clearest case of indexical sign is a signpost for traffic directions or facial expressions.
- Icon: provides a visual, auditory or any other perceptual image of the things it stands for. An iconic sign is similar to the thing it represents. The idea of danger because of animals is represented with the image of that animal.
Language is a conventional system of signs. But not all language is symbolic. If you ask in a labary: where is Shakespeare? You are ferefing of course to Shakespeare books, not the person. It is really an index. Language is not only symbolic but indexical. Indexical meaning index, to point out something, its concept its logical relationship with reality.
Componential analysis: Nida in his book on lexical semantics^ first considers how single words can have a variety of different meaning. Afterwords he sees how different words can have a variety of similar meanings. This can be studied from two perspective:
Semasiology approach: term as starting point. You take the word as your starting point. You study the possible senses or meanings. Take the word run F 0E 0 to run (movement) to run ( a company)
Onomasiology approach: concept as starting point. Take a concep such as anger and name the words that can relate that term ( angry, frustation, pissed off, mad, annoyed, upset…)
In componential analysis definitions are based on necessary and sufficient features. You couldn’t compare father and color, they need to belong to certain word categories.
Prototype analysis:
- Different meanings of a single term: Nida, first, observes that a single word can have a number of different senses or meanings (ex: chair). In most instances a word seems to have a central meaning from which a number of other meanings are derived. Before prototype
Reversive, events that are done or undone ( connect- disconect, tie- untie)
-- Contiguity: the most important relation between terms in relation to the analysis of the distinctive features or components of meaning. Contiguity represents the relations between closely related meanings occupying a well defined restricted semantic domain and exhibiting certain well marked contrast. The result is a Blaster of contiguous meanings sharings a series of common features so that they constitute a single semantic domain. At the same time, each meaning is distinctively set off from other related meanings by at least one important feature. For example: movement in space ( crawl, sprint, run, walk, jog)
Classical theory or objetivist view ( components of meaning) support the idea that if things exists objectively the human being observes that those features exists and asing those entities to categories that already exist. For things to be something, there must be a shared common component. In the classical theory the members of a category have equeal status. We have different types of trees but they are all trees because they have tree features/characteristics however those features would be different among them.
The first notion to introduce is that of Family Resemblance (Wittgestein). The name is chosen because given a family they shared maybe the shape of the nose, the eyes… but not everyone would be equally tall. The idea of resemblance regards to different dimensions of resemblance. Wittgenstein chose the example of the word “game”, he observed that the things we call a game have very different characteristics.
Some would precise of skill, athletic capacities or luck. There are also games that are not about winning or losing, but it is still named as a game. For Wittgenstein it seems that everything that we call game is characterised not by only a common shared component. Wittgenstein also observed that concepts or categories does not have such strict boundaries as the classical theory may say but that categories are extensibles and flexibles. If something emerges that is similar to a previous game then we would call it a game.
The second notion to introduce is the Chaining Relationships (Austin). Different senses that have something in common ( that if B has someting in common with A then C has something in common with B etc). Take the example of healthy ( healthy body, food , complexion) a healthy food allows us to have a healthy body wich is the final result of a healthy complexión. We have three different senses of the adjective healthy and all of them can be linked because they are related. There exists a chain relationship. This idea is quite competitive with the one of family resamblence, being in the same category forming part of the same concepts because of relative
similarity. The implication of relative similatiry is the absence of common features. It is not necesary to share common features to belong to the same categories.
The third notion is the one of Fuzzy areas ( Zadeh). He observed that features are not always bynary. Not a question of yes or no. Sometimes you would assing intermediate value to something, a “maybe”. As a result categories are not so well defined, rather we would have fuzzy areas. Take categories such as food, vegeteable. If you tried to mention types of food, people would say pear apple or banana but relating to vegeteables we could say something as tomato or olive. It would be necessary to place those in a fuzzy area between two categories.
In Prototype thories it is believed that categories are characterised by Centrality Gradiance. In some cases also by Membership Gradiance. The idea that certain member or senses would be more central , more psychologically important and saliente than others. Whereas other members in turn, have a more marginal status, they are less central, more peripheral. That is to say that things in the same category have not the same status.
Prototype categories: term introduced by Eleanor rosch in the 1960s 1970s. She worked with natural categories, things that exist in the real world. She produced a whole series of very influential papers in the 1970s which led to the development of the prototype theory. That is to say that semantic categories are structures around some psycologically , very salient, items that recall prototypes. A prototype is defined as a psychological entity as the example is the first that comes to your mind, a highly prototypical example. Of course then it exist highly prototypical examples and less prototypical ones. Being a psychologist she would work with empirical data.
One test was to give together to two hunderds students pieces of forniture and then you ask them to rate the pieces of forniture in terms of good examples and less good examples , that is known as a direct rating. Among those hundreds of pieces of forniture your had everything imagined in a house. Table, chair, telephone, wardrobe. It those were the more highlighted ones then we can observe how some examples are more central than others.
Another way to test is the free production,^ in which we ask the students to write different examples of, for example, fruit. A different way to carry on an experiment on Prototype category is the “Draw a…”. The final way to carry a test of this type is the reaction time experimient, the more prototypical and central examples in our mind would have a shorter reaction time at the moment of answering, because they are already in our mind.
Hedge (Lakoff^ 1973):
journey. In a metaphor we would try to explain love as our target and the kind of language that I use to talk about the target is our source.
The main function of metaphors is undestanding, explaining, in turn the main function of metonomy is stablishing reference. If I say Shakespeare is on the top shelve it is a metonomy. I’m not trying to undestand Shakespeare books but to stablish a referece to Shakespeare books.
The relationship between Source and Target in a metaphor is “X is Y” type. In a Metonomy the relationship between source and target is rather “X stands for Y”
Ruiz de Mendoza’s two types of metaphors :
Domain expansion: source-in- target metonimies. The source is a subdomain of the target.
Domain reduction: Target-in-source metonimies. The target is a subdomain of the source.
Some previous notions on Metaphors: so far we have seen domain as a little Package of knowledge. Now Lakoff only uses the word domain, althought many people use the word frame instead. The word frame began to be used in the 1970 to talk about structure of knowledge. Fillmore was the first to use the term Frame and Frame semantics together with Minsky later on.
--Domain/ Frame: Fillmore observed that in english there exist alarge numbers of verbs that are semantically related. In the sense that they evoke the same general frame. Fillmore first example was the verb to buy and to sell. Fillmore argued that both had a transaction frame ( buyer, seller, money , place. ). Then he argued that if you use the verb buy in a sentence then you foreground the buyer and background the seller. That it was not possible to undestand the verb to sell if we dont have knowledge of the entire frame. The frame structures the word meanings and the word evokes the frame. It is a structured Package of knowledge.
Minski also started to talk about frames in the 1970. He saw them as steriotyped events. He argued that frames consisted on slots and fillers.
Frames and domains then are similar ideas.
--Scenarios: we refer to something dinamic. Evolution. We have a starting point and an ending point. You can see something as static or dinamic, if we have something dinamic in mind we use the word scenario. We would use the word frame with somethng more static in mind.
--Script and Schemata: they are a kind of structure package of knowledge. In the 1970s and onwards people started to talk about structured packages of knowledge.
--Image Schema: is a very basic structure that recur in our everyday bodily and social experience. The container/content image schema, the bearer / burden image schema , cause / effect image schema , up/down and center/peripheral are some examples.
Conceptual Metaphor theory: it begun in the 1980s and lauched by the book Metaphors we live by ( Lakoff, Johnson). In that book two basic claims are made:
Metaphors are conceptual phenomenon, they are not in the language of a piece of paper. Metaphors are mappings between conceptual domains in our mind. It is a congnitive phenomenon that is stablished in our minds.
Metaphor is ubiquitous. It is presented in everyday language. Our everyday language is full of metaphors.
In metaphors the structure and the logic of the source domain in mapped onto the logic and structure of the target domain. Typically we would find a whole set of linguistic expression and then the underlying mapping that supposedly generated those senses.
The structure and the logic of the source domain is mapped onto the logic and structure of the target domain. They both share a scenatrio and a structure that is mappable. The similarity i son the structural elements of the scenario.
Linguistic expressions such us : Our relationship is not going anywhere, or our relationship is off the track. Lakoff and Johnson argued that these are not individual linguistic expressions but there seems to be one and the same metaphorical scenario.
--Participant can be people, animals, objects or abstractions. Formally speaking participants are Semantically realised by nouns and syntactically by subjects, direct and indirect objects.
--Attributes are a sign to participants and they are typically realised by adjectives and syntactically by complements ( Subject or Object)
--Circumstances are typically optional structures and that goes both for syntax and semantics. So syntactically circumstances are realised by adjuncts and formally speaking by adverbs.
There are three main processes: material, mental and relational. Material processes have their subtypes: processes of doing and causing. Mental and relational have also their subtypes.
Material Processes:
--Material processes of doing are actions or activities carried out by a participant, which is to be called the agent, that operates on itself or on others to bring about some kind of change in the situation. E.g. Bill was swimming in the river. Bill is agent, was swimming is material process of doing and in the river is circumstance. This is an animate agent, he use his own energy and have a motivation, responsability and intention ( as opossite e.g. I fall down the stairs is not inttentionate ). Natural phenomena or psychological states are in the limit of being an agent instead their are called inanimate force ( E.g The earthquake struck the capital ). Bill hit Sue in this example the second participant is called affected.
--Material processes of causing:
a) SPOd: monotransitive. b) SPOdCo: complex transitive.
Causative agents bring about a change of state in the affective. That change of state is expressed syntactically by the complement of the O. and semantically by a resulting attribute. Causative agent cause a change of state in the affective and it is expanded in the resulting attribute.
A passive is ok in both cases. But we need an intransitive. In the second one you can say “The ball rolled”. Different structure. Syntactically there is no difference but semantically it is. Peter causes the ball rolled. In the first case is different. Peter rolled the ball: ergative structure. When the affected object in a transitive structure can become affected subject in a corresponding intransitive structure, without turn it into a passive.
Mental processes:
They have a participant (experiencer) and a phenomenon (experiencied). In Mental Processes there are two participants: one which is animated and typically human, it could be an animal as well, that feels/sees/thinks which we called experiencer (Halliday’s term). Second participant that which is felt/seen/ thought/believed by the experiencer, and this which we called the phenomenom. I believe it is true. I: experiencer; believe: of Cognition; it is true: phenomenom. Verbs of Mental Processes are usually stative verbs, is no volution, not dynamic. Stative verbs do not normally accept the continue tense. I talk (of perception) to you: I’m talking, it implies that you are actively carrying out an action. This is not doing something actively.
--Mental processes of perception are carried out by stative verbs ( no motion implied) such as see, smell, feel, hear and taste ( this arem no progressive verbs) and by their dynamic counterparts such us listen,match… Experiences are divided into two parts: recipiente experiencer and agentive experiencer.
Some of the stative verbs dont need a dynamic counterpart since they can work as either recipiente or agentive experiencers ( “ I felt th sweater I was wearing” “Why dont you taste it?” “The child fells hot”)
--Mental processes of cognition involve verbs such as to understand, to forget, to remember, to know, to realise and many similar verbs. Normally speaking they are stative verbs ( recipient experiences) but there are exceptions such us think of and think about which can be used in progressive and imperative. Another example is to remember , which can be used in imperative ( I thought so, I was thinking about it, I remember locking the door)
--Mental processes of affection involve many verbs like^ love, live, please, want… they are usually stative verbs but there are some exceptions such as enjoy. There is a second type which involves verbs of emotion such as worry, surprise, dismay or depress ( it surprised me )
Relational processes:
--Attributive relational processes ( characterising or identifying [current or resulting]):
“Silvia is my cousing” ( identifying) “Silvia is thirteen” ( characterising)
